The roofing man had his account suspended at the old forum at one point due to his trolling. That's not mudslinging or an alternate fact. That's just what happened.
The roofing man had his account suspended at the old forum at one point due to his trolling. That's not mudslinging or an alternate fact. That's just what happened.
Cam, you also said he was never sincere about anything. That WAS alternate fact.
Point is, since he's gone, stop talking about him here. If he bugs you on FB, tell him to please stop, if he doesn't get it, you can delete him too.
Be a friend... or let him be part of history. Phil just doesn't want folks to talk about his friend behind his back. Personally, I also don't like that.
Last edited by Crazed_Insanity; February 13th, 2017 at 08:40 AM.
I won't mention him again.
So I guess discussing national and international security issues openly in public is fine, just don't involve a private server.
http://theslot.jezebel.com/mar-a-lag...cle-1792299754
Yeah? Me too. I wasn't against that. Kicking some Taliban's butt was probably the only course of action we could take legitimately and to let off some of our steam.Originally Posted by Taimar
You're preaching to the choir!But Iraq had nothing to do with it, and there was nothing linking Iraq to Al Queda. In fact, when the U.S. became belligerent about invading Iraq, Saddam had the most notable terrorist taking shelter in his country, Abu Nidal, killed.
Never claim to be a know it all, but it is really necessary to belittle Billi all the time? You can easily demonstrate your vast knowledge over me without including this sentence..., but anyway...You know so little.
How do you know that I didn't know about this context? Of course there were pressure to invade... given the intel and angry American mob wanting to strike somebody... it's perfectly understandable that a politician would want to yield to popular opinion and the intelligence report.You know why Democrats of any kind voted for that war? Because ever since the 1970s, they'd been painted as being weak on national security. It was a popular war with considerable support. A gallup poll from March 24, 2003 reveals that 72% of the country was in favor of going to war in Iraq. Mostly because they'd been spoon fed lies about the reasoning behind it that we know were lies today. No Senator with ambitions is going to vote against something that popular, particularly if they've been called weak on defense in the past.
There's a context to everything.
But then, why didn't Bernie Sanders go with the herd? I don't think he is without ambition, he just has more integrity.
Yes, I'm human. I can certainly be emotional at times. When a liberal got emotional and made a wrong decision, you offer her a pass. Asking me to examine the context. However, if a conservative gets emotional, will you give him the same pass?Clearly you're very emotional.
Yes, I do. If only Al Gore could win his home state, he could've easily taken over the white house. But he couldn't even win his HOME STATE!!!No. The people to blame are Republican voters. Who put George W. Bush into office despite the choice of a FAR more qualified and prepared candidate on the other side, even if he was dull as dishwater and an obnoxious snob. They voted for George W. Bush because he "seemed like a guy you could have a beer with." Remember that?
Okay, no argument from me here...And now they've done even worse. Despite every rational argument and the past experience of lots of people dealing with Donald Trump, now they've foisted that disaster on us just as we were cleaning up their last huge mess. How long do we have to keep cleaning up the chaos they create, most of which is based on a sort of first grader's understanding of government and a logical pretzel of half truths and intellectually bankrupt ideas?
I agree.Yeah, that's because you have no idea what you're talking about. As usual.
Tell me, really, does day 22 of a Hillary Clinton administration look as dismal and disastrous as where we are now with the current "administration"? In my wildest nightmares I can't picture that.
Again, I concur. She'll for sure be a more presentable/presidential president, similar to Obama.She was my senator. I voted for her twice. I've actually met one of the people who wanted to run against her who's now a fox news host (Jeanine Pirro). She did a good job as a Senator and she'd do a good job as President.
She is not somebody I particularly like or have warm feelings about, or who I think would do all the things I want done. But you never get 100% of what you want. Ever.
I guess she lost people like me not really because of her, but because of Bernie. He really opened my eyes... that even under the Obama Admin, the rich still got richer and the blacks still don't matter. Hillary for sure won't be the one to rectify those problems. She also could've easily won my vote had she included someone more anti-established for vp... maybe she was thinking since you guys are Bernie or bust... and since I'm not Bernie so you guys might as well just go bust?
America really deserves somebody better than those 2 candidates.
If I were in a swing state, at the time of election, I'd still vote for a Jill Stein.
If I were in a swing state and can travel back in time, of course I'd vote for Hillary.
But I live in CA, so it matters not how I voted.
Besides demonstrating intellectual superiority, democrats also need to learn to be able to emotionally connect to voters. Bill Clinton did it. So did Obama.
Last edited by Crazed_Insanity; February 13th, 2017 at 09:55 AM.
Okay, my bad, I shouldn't have said 'explain to me', but you definitely need to explain to yourself why must one become an ardent pro-whatever and be so sure about the opposition is just plain wrong.
The abortion issue cannot be simplified by these political ideologies.
Political views are more based on our genes than our environment?
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/o...iefs.html?_r=0
If this is true, political debates intend on changing opposition's minds just won't be possible. It also makes little sense to be so mad at people for their political views..., we just need to learn to get along... to achieve true diversity.
So I guess discussing national and international security issues openly in public is fine, just don't involve a private server.
http://theslot.jezebel.com/mar-a-lag...cle-1792299754
That genius also took a photo with the person in charge of the nuclear "football" and posted it on facebook. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY CLUE HOW TO RUN A GOVERNMENT THERE?? (Rhetorical)
What you are genetically pre-conditioned to think and do does not define what you must do. You can use knowledge, experience, and critical thinking to go against your genetic and biological predispositions.
And regardless of what you believe and who you agree with, learning to get along requires allowing other people to live how they believe they should live. When your political beliefs require that others act in accordance to your own religious beliefs, and not there own, you're not going to get along.
Get that weak shit off my track
I think the founding fathers had sufficient foresight to draft a constitution to help us get along. As far as I know, our constitution protects all of us to be able to practice our own religions or non-religion.
IMHO, so what if a public building has on display a bible? Or a flag that has a cross? Our government does NOT force people to goto Christian churches. These symbols are religious symbols, yes, but they are also part of our history. Why must we eradicate our own historical roots? Freedom of religion isn't freedom from religion.
Or prayers in schools. If you don't pray, will the school discipline you? If yes, then that's a clear violation of our very own constitution. If you forbid christian teachers and children from praying, then aren't you violating their faith?
Anyway, these practices are negotiable... we all need to make compromises in order to get along, it's unfortunate that our political ideologies has became so extreme and we've became so easily ticked off...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote